Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality,
Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste

Exploring followership in hospitality and tourism education

T
a,⁎ a b
Cynthia S. Deale , Seung Hyun (Jenna) Lee , Donald G. Schoffstall
a
East Carolina University, School of Hospitality Leadership, 148 Rivers Building, Mailstop 505, Greenville 27858, NC, USA
b
Johnson & Wales University-Charlotte, College of Hospitality Management, 801W. Trade Street, Charlotte 28202, NC, USA

1. Introduction

Leadership has been the focus of much study, but the consideration of the concepts involved in following leaders, or in what has
been termed followership, is relatively rare (e.g. Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, & Morris, 2006; Brum & Drury, 2013; Testa, 2000).
Furthermore, it is even more uncommon as the subject of studies in the field of hospitality and tourism. However, in spite of this lack
of attention, followership is viewed as essential to the management and organization of groups. Moreover, it is critical at all levels of
an organization, especially with respect to the relationships between employers and employees (Bjugstad et al., 2006).
The term followership may be defined as the practices that occur and evolve between leaders and followers, allowing followers to
function with leaders to achieve shared goals while demonstrating teamwork and building interconnections (Colangelo, 2000; Kelley,
2004). Additionally, while followership is significant in all kinds of organizations and operations, it is particularly important in
hospitality and tourism organizations and operations. In the hospitality and tourism industry, service is vital to success and groups of
employees must work effectively together to make and serve food, provide lodging operations around the clock, and plan and conduct
events in a well-timed, suitable manner. Knowing more about what stakeholders in hospitality and tourism education believe about
followership would be useful for instructors and students, for arguably being an effective follower is important in one's career in the
hospitality and tourism industry.
Therefore, this study explored followership in the discipline of hospitality and tourism. The purpose of this qualitative study was
to learn more about what hospitality and tourism students, educators, and industry professionals think about followership by in-
vestigating their personal views of followership in the field of hospitality and tourism, with the goal of guiding further research and
education in this area.

2. Literature review

2.1. The framework of followership

An uncomplicated definition of leadership, arguably the framework of followership, suggested by Van Vugt (2009) proposes that
leadership is “a process of influence to attain mutual goals” (pg. 355). This all-purpose definition of leadership is built upon the work
of others (e.g. Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Hollander, 1985).
As far as the concepts encompassing leadership, a number of theories exist. Over 50 years ago, scholars put forward the trait
theory of leadership (Lundin & Lancaster, 1990; Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009), although today leadership is more commonly seen
as a process. Even after much attention was given to the trait theory, no single trait or set of traits was shown to truly to describe
leaders, and behavioral and situational leadership theories began to develop (e.g. Heifetz, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2006). There are
numerous specific theories related to leadership, yet they do not necessarily address followership directly. They include, but are not
limited to, the following:

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ohalloranc@ecu.edu (C.S. Deale), Leese14@ecu.edu (S.H.J. Lee), Donald.schoffstall@jwu.edu (D.G. Schoffstall).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2018.01.002
Received 4 August 2017; Received in revised form 3 January 2018; Accepted 12 January 2018
1473-8376/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.S. Deale et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

2.1.1. Transactional versus transformational leadership

The transactional versus transformational interpretation of leadership has been researched by numerous scholars (e.g. Aldoory &
Toth, 2004; Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass & Avolio, 1994,
1995; Hoption, 2014; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Transformational leaders focus on tasks and outcomes. This type of
leadership centers on an organization's current goals and expectations through supervision and the use of incentives and penalties.
Followers are expected to concentrate on compliance with those objectives are well (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Conversely, transfor-
mational leaders focus on leading by example, so as to help followers see the leader's vision and goals. This style of leadership also
connects with followers’ strengths and weaknesses and on ways to improve their capabilities (Bass & Avolio, 1997). While followers
are an important component of this leadership paradigm, they are not the focal point.

2.1.2. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory

This theory concentrates on the didactic relationship between leaders and followers (e.g. Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975;
Gerstner & Day, 1997; Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Graen & Scandura, 1987). The uniqueness of this theory is that the re-
lationship is the unit of analysis (Gerstner & Day, 1997) and thus, it does not focus primarily on followers.

2.1.3. Servant leadership

This theory of leadership proposes that a leader is inspired by service itself through a desire to serve and encourage followers (e.g.
Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Dixon, Mercado, & Knowles, 2013; Greenleaf, 1977; Russell & Stone, 2002). Although followers are
considered, the focus of this theory is on the leader as servant (Greenleaf, 1977).
All of these views of leadership may offer concepts that are useful to managers, owners, and employees of businesses and other
organizations. These theories may help them to comprehend their communication and activities as they work together to accomplish
goals.
Yet, even though the current attention is on the leadership process instead of the trait approach, a number of scholars believe that
people neglect to remember that leaders do not exist unless they have followers (e.g. Kang, Heo, & Kim, 2015; Kellerman, 2008;
Kelley, 2004). Moreover, although individuals may be able to identify their own leadership style, they frequently do not understand
their followership style (Colangelo, 2000). Understanding one's own style and behaviors regarding followership can be useful for
performing in the workplace and the community throughout one's career and personal life.

2.2. Scholarship on followership

In comparison to leadership, followership has not been much of a focus in the literature. Followership has been explored by a
limited number of scholars over the past 20 years or so (e.g. Chaleff, 1995, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1988; Kellerman, 2012; Kelley,
1988, 2004); but exactly what is followership? An uncomplicated, pragmatic definition of followership, suggested by Baker and Denis
(2011), proposes that “a follower is defined as an active, participative role in which a person willingly supports the teachings or views
of a leader and consciously and deliberately works towards goals held in common with the leader and/or organization” (pg. 342). A
number of researchers also suggest that followership is an experiential requisite of leadership and is necessary for effective leadership
(e.g. Agho, 2009; Rost, 2008). In fact, followership has been called “upward leadership” by some scholars (e.g. Carsten, Uhl-Bien,
West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010).
Additional researchers (e.g. Chaleff, 1995, 2003, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1988; Kang et al., 2015; Kellerman, 2008) have
strived to provide thoughtful approaches toward understanding followership. For example, Chaleff (1995, 2008) proposes that in-
fluential followers encourage influential leaders with limited use of the chain of command. Meanwhile, Hersey and Blanchard (1988)
argues that people need to reflect on an all-encompassing interpretation of the leadership and followership process. Kellerman (2012)
further proposes that followership is a sense of shared interaction among subordinates and superiors. Additionally, Chaleff (1995,
2003) and Kellerman (2012) maintain that the behaviors of followers are critical to the accomplishments of leaders. In terms of
specific qualities of followership, Chaleff (1995, 2003) characterizes them as the courage to assume responsibility, the courage to
serve, the courage to challenge, the courage to participate in personal and organizational transformation, and the courage to take
moral action. The five qualities have impacts on organizations from the perspectives of both employees and managers and have the
capacity to enhance their varied work-related activities.
Both leadership and followership can be essential to the management of hospitality and tourism businesses and organizations. For
that reason, perhaps the tenets of followership ought to be recognized by hospitality and tourism instructors, students, and industry
practitioners. As an innovator in the study of followership, Kelley (2004) observed that leaders usually offer no more than 20 percent
to the accomplishments of most business or non-profit entities. The other 80 percent of the success in an organization relied on
followers. For instance, the majority of employees, despite their actual position, expended more hours and effort as followers than as
leaders (Kelley, 2004). Almost two decades after Kelley (2004) explored followership, Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore, and Bullock
(2009) tried to validate his scale (1992) and discovered that independent critical thinking and active engagement occupied primary
places in the work lives of employees. Therefore, given the large amount of time that students will devote to being employees, as both
followers and potentially as leaders, it may be useful to study followership as well as leadership in undergraduate programs.
As noted by several scholars, the concept of followership differs by culture and other factors (e.g. Kellerman, 2008; Komives,
Lucas, & McMahon, 2009; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Merriti & Helmreich, 1996). Recognizing and comprehending differences in
cross-cultural leadership and followership practices are important given the multicultural world today, but research on these topics is
limited. Additionally, according to some researchers, followership may differ according to demographic and other variables (e.g.

43
C.S. Deale et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

Chou, 2012: Dixon, 2003). For example, those working in technical fields show more connections with follower behaviors and not as
much with commitment levels, while people working in non-technical occupations display a reduced involvement with follower
behaviors and more connections with commitment levels, regardless of their age (Dixon, 2003). Additional studies are needed as
further attention needs to be paid to identifying and working with cultural differences and other variations in followership and
leadership.
Not long ago, Uhl- Bien et al. (2014) observed that effective followers seem to have many of the same characteristics possessed by
effective leaders. Others have asserted that followers are essential to leadership practices and that effective followers are critical to
leadership. Many others assert that outstanding, courageous followers are necessary for productive organizations that often apply
much use of teamwork and shared governance (e.g., Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992, 2008; Lowe, K. Galen Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam,
1996; Posner, 2004; Potter, Rosenbach, & Pittman, 2001; Reid, Flowers, & Larkin, 2005; Schindler, 2012). Therefore, if followership
is important, then rather than neglecting the subject of followership in education, perhaps it should be taught in intentional ways,
along with leadership.
Although some researchers believe that followership is an antiquated idea that is demeaning to those who concur with the
judgments and behaviors of a leader (e.g. Haven‐Tang & Jones, 2012; Rosenau, 2004), additional scholars remain committed to
acquiring further knowledge of the concepts and practices of effective followership (e.g. Bjugstad et al., 2006; Brum & Drury, 2013;
Carsten et al., 2010; Dixon, 2003, 2009). In addition, others adhere to the premise that followership is an essential component of
leadership (e.g. Kelley, 2004, 2008; Sy, 2010).
In their studies of followership, some scholars have created scales to recognize and assess followership behaviors (e.g. Dixon,
2003; Sy, 2010). One such scale that was built upon Chaleff's (1995) work was developed by Dixon (2003) via an empirical in-
vestigation into followership that resulted in being able to find and classify followership behaviors at all levels of an organization. In a
further study, Dixon and Westbrook (2003) maintained the significance of followership in the current century and suggested a leader-
follower model that included followership as a piece of the leadership development process, adding to the idea that leaders are also
followers (Dixon, 2009).
Technology continues to grow rapidly in its importance and use, and given how its application quickly changes how people
communicate with each other, perhaps followership is also more significant in the current high-tech era (Kellerman, 2008, 2012).
Recommendations for addressing followership in the modern world include focusing on the functions and roles of followers. This
focus may be especially relevant to the fact that leaders have become less prominent and followers have become more prominent,
with technology occupying a large role in this milieu (Carsten et al., 2010). Some scholars have also found that leaders’ impacts on
followers’ characteristics are possibly more complicated than previously believed and therefore, additional research on leadership
must focus on acquiring a more thorough grasp of how followers communicate and cooperate with leaders (Carsten et al., 2010;
Collinson, 2005, 2006).

2.3. Followership in hospitality and tourism

In a recent article on followership, specifically undertaken in hospitality and tourism, Deale, Schoffstall, and Brown (2016) found
notable differences between the perceptions of hospitality industry professionals, hospitality faculty members, and hospitality stu-
dents. Courage to participate in transformation (part of the transformation followership dimension) was found to be important across
all groups, with hospitality students stating they felt least in control based on their place in the organizational structure of an
employer's establishment (Deale et al., 2016).
Few studies have focused on followership compared with leadership, but even less work has attended to followership in the
hospitality and tourism industry or its related education. Some of the previous examples include the following: a proposal by Wang
and Cameron (2012) to conduct a qualitative study of employees in the hospitality and tourism industry; a qualitative doctoral study
of hospitality managers’ beliefs about followership (Schindler, 2012); a case study focused on leadership and followership in rural
tourism (Haven-Tang & Jones, 2012); a couple of studies showing that understanding followership in the hospitality workplace is
essential (e.g. Testa, 2000; Saunders, 2004); and a study of employees in luxury hotels that found that successful followership helped
to reduce job “burnout” (Kang, Heo, & Kim, 2015). Results from the research by Kang, Heo, and Kim (2015) are intriguing, as the
characteristics of effective followership that they found centered on critical thinking, proactive participation, and team spirit.
However, the study was focused on a limited sector of the hotel industry. In the related field of parks and recreation, Ward and Ellis
(2008) examined youth leadership's influence on adolescent peers toward following. For adolescents, autonomy of choice, sense of
competence with the tasks, and relationship with the leader and other peers determined positive followership behavior (Ward & Ellis,
2008; Ward, Lundberg, Ellis, & Berrett, 2010).
Additional knowledge needs to be gained about followership in hospitality and tourism. Service is at the center of the hospitality
and tourism industry and it needs employees who are trained and informed and who can sustain and surpass guest expectations in
reliable ways (Cai & Hobson, 2004). Thus, although followership has not frequently been studied in hospitality and tourism, finding
out additional information about followership could be meaningful to those involved in the hospitality and tourism industry and
education.

2.4. Followership and education

Leadership education has received significant attention in higher education (e.g. Bridges & Hallinger, 1996; Brungardt, 1997;
Posner, 2004; Rost & Barker, 2000), but limited consideration has been given to followership education. The wording applied to

44
C.S. Deale et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

concepts and practices seems to make a difference in the emphasis of education (Hoption, 2014; Kelley, 2008) and therefore, some
scholars have called for incorporating followership education into leadership education and believe that followership is part of
leadership (e.g. Kellerman, 2008, 2012). Still, other educators have suggested specific ways to teach followership, such as teaching
creativity to assist learners to become involved as imaginative, dynamic followers (Baublits, 2014) and having students complete case
study assignments about followership to help them value and comprehend followership (Hoption, 2014).
However, although leader-follower connections and communication matter in hospitality and tourism and there has been some
attention given to the idea that understanding followership in the hospitality workplace is important (e.g. Testa, 2000; Saunders,
2004), limited research has explored how and what to teach in terms of followership in hospitality and tourism education (Deale
et al., 2016). It is possible that the connection between leadership and followership in hospitality and tourism offers an opportunity
for educators to attend to both of these subjects in their classes. Thus, consideration ought to be given to followership in hospitality
and tourism education where instructors strive to educate tomorrow's industry leaders. Therefore, the questions that guided this
study were the following:

• What are the views of followership held by stakeholders in hospitality and tourism education?
• How might these views inform the teaching of the concepts and practices of followership in hospitality and tourism education?
3. Methods

This study took a qualitative approach in the form of interpretive inquiry in which researchers make an interpretation of what
they see, hear, and understand. Instead of an attempt to generalize, the authors attempted to report multiple perspectives, identify the
many factors involved in a situation, and generally sketch the larger picture that emerges (Creswell, 2009). Interviews were con-
ducted to investigate the research questions because the interviewees’ ideas could help to form the basis of further investigations into
followership in the field of hospitality and tourism and its related education. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was
selected as the methodology for this project because of its specific focus on one's ability to make sense of the life experiences of those
interviewed. This method makes use of the accounts provided by participants to learn about a variety of characteristics of events or
experiences (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). IPA permits careful study and analysis of individual interviews, or each participant's
narrative, while also finding similarities and differences between interviews.
A total of 12 adults involved in hospitality and tourism were interviewed for this study. Hospitality and tourism educators,
industry professionals, and graduate students were selected as interviewees in this initial study. People in these stakeholder groups
were invited to participate because all of them had knowledge of the industry and had completed their undergraduate educations and
therefore, had a contextual background for the discussion regarding the subject of followership in hospitality and tourism education.
The interviewees where asked via an email to a Listserv if they would be willing to be interviewed. The participants in the study
indicated that they would indeed be willing to be interviewed and provided their name and email to the investigators. All of those
interviewed were Americans living in the United States (U.S.).
A review of studies that applied IPA specified that the mean number of participants in studies using IPA was 15 (Reid, Flowers,
Larkin, 2005). However, 12 interviews were deemed to be adequate for this research project because the interviews conducted
exhibited saturation and further interviews were leading to little additional new data of value to the study. Semi-structured inter-
views were considered to be a suitable process for collecting data because they can elicit “stories, thoughts, and feelings” (Smith et al.,
2009, p. 56) about the interviewees’ attitudes and experiences with followership in hospitality and tourism. The researchers created
an interview schedule based on the literature. The interview questions were then reviewed by three academic professionals and
revised accordingly. Each interview lasted approximately an hour and all of them were recorded. Once they were completed, the
recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed by three coders, which ensured reliability. The analysis process began with coders
reviewing the same interview transcript and they found that their coding schemes were similar; therefore, they analyzed the next
three interviews and compared their coding from each transcription. The coders observed that the findings of the four interviews
were similar, and therefore, they analyzed the additional eight interviews. Employing an editing approach, recommended by Miller
and Crabtree (1999), and applying systematic text condensation as suggested by Malterud (2012), the coders used the research
questions to guide their analysis and identify themes. After the themes were identified, the findings were written up to explain the
themes in narrative form. In IPA, this step is seen as an extension of the analysis (Smith & Osborn, 2003). The interview questions are
listed in Appendix A.

4. Results and discussion

The interviewees were from three different groups, including hospitality graduate students (n = 3), hospitality faculty members
(n = 3), and hospitality industry professionals (n = 6). The students included two females and one male, the faculty members
included one female and two males, and the industry professionals included three men and three women. Those interviewed were
American and primarily from the state of North Carolina, although the faculty members hailed from California, Iowa, and New
Mexico. Most of the interviewees were Caucasian, although Asian and Hispanic industry professionals were among those interviewed.
All of the interviewees had some work experience in the hospitality and tourism industry. Their work experience ranged from a
couple of years to over 30 years of experience in the industry, and the positions interviewees had held included being servers, grill
cooks, bartenders, event planners, convention and visitor bureau (CVB) managers, and general managers in hospitality operations.
The industry professionals who were interviewed held current positions as a club manager, a hotel manager at the corporate level, a

45
C.S. Deale et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

Fig. 1. Followership – Respondent Themes.

hotel guest services manager, two convention and visitor bureau (CVB) managers, and a food and beverage manager.
The interviewees were asked what their definition of a follower was and their responses focused on aspects of teamwork and
cooperation (see Fig. 1). Representative comments from respondents’ answers included the following terms and phrases: “team
player,” “setting aside ego,” “getting (the) job done,” “someone who understands the common goals of a leader and will help to
support that common goal,” “common stake in strategic goal,” “attitude that I… have trust in my leader,” “going to do the best I
can…like a part of the whole,” “ I think a follower is an individual who recognizes the overall goal of the organization and colla-
borates with others to achieve that,” “follower pretty much gets along with everybody else and goes in the direction of the crowd,”
and “we all can learn from each other.” Participants were asked what they thought
effective followership entailed, and their responses focused on respect, cooperation, and communication. Examples of what they
said included the following: “respect in leader,” “effective communication,” “understanding the common goal and agreeing with it,”
“followers are the ones that make it happen,” “someone that wants to work towards the common goal,” and “someone that wants to
help benefit everybody else toward the common goal.” Three of the industry professionals’ responses also focused on the need to
“check the ego at the door, be willing to admit mistakes and be willing to take risks.” These fit with their definitions of ineffective
followership that included the following: “you have to have one leader, because if you have too many that doesn’t work,” “individuals
who… are selfish or are so focused on themselves that they simply ignore others or ignore the organziation,” “someone that doesn’t
pull their weight,” and “someone that doesn’t really help the organziation…just an employee that's there for the paycheck, not really
looking at the bigger picture.”
When asked if there are benefits to being a follower, all of those interviewed agreed that there were several. Notable benefits
mentioned included the following: “knowing that (as a follower) you are a tenant to make a business successful,” “less responsibility”,
“not looked at as hard,” and “may not be judged as hard as everybody else if you’re a follower” (more pressure on the leader to
perform a certain way). One interviewee, who served as a non-tenure track faculty member and had many years of experience as a
food and beverage manager, made some particularly interesting comments regarding this area. They included: “The Golden Gate
Bridge Analogy –without that strong foundation of the pillars, the, the… the support beams, that bridge is not gonna hold. It won’t. It,
it can’t.” She also noted the following,
“I wanna be the best support person that I can be because I like helping people be successful, then in that case, those are the

46
C.S. Deale et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

followers that you want. Those are the ones that you have to make sure that you know they are valued, because without them you
can’t accomplish a goal. If I know it's in my personality, I don’t wanna be a leader, but I wanna be the best support person that I
can be because I like helping people be successful, then in that case, those are the followers that you want. And those are the ones
that you have to make sure that you know they are valued, because without them you can’t accomplish a goal.”
Interviewees were asked if they believed that there are personal qualities and behaviors that make followers more or less suc-
cessful and they thought that there were a number of these, including motivation, listening, caring, mentorship, being humble, and
having respect. The most common answer dealt with listening, mentioned by eight of those interviewed. One interviewee specifically
noted that, “Listening is always the most important quality for anybody in any organization.” Those interviewed observed that all of
the qualities mentioned above help to get tasks and goals accomplished and help to improve the quality of a project or task or goal
that has been completed.
As requested, the interviewees described events where they themselves acted as effective followers. These experiences included
being a member of a group project team, working as a “bus girl,” a bartender, a shift leader at a restaurant, a faculty member, and as
the manager of a CVB. When asked about how they demonstrated effective followership during the experiences listed above, the
interviewees had the following to say:

o Bartender example: “follow my General Manager, I keep my bar clean, my correct pourage and things like that, my pour costs and
stuff like that and I don’t cheat and I don’t steal and I don’t try to you know, garner tips by short pouring this person and
overpouring that person…”
o Faculty member example: “very good individual as our department chair and he was very good about communicating um, what
we could or what we could not do given the… given the parameters, given the limitations of the university, or resources… things
of that nature. And, and you know, that was a very core group of individuals that really… the oars were in the water at the same
time, everybody was moving in the same direction, um, that, that was a really good experience.”
o Shift leader at a restaurant example: “shift leader, not the manager, can get others to accommodate me because I’m a hard worker,
laid back and a good guy.”
o Chief executive officer (CEO) of a CVB example: “ when working on a business plan, conducting a staff retreat, work specifically
key niche markets that we might be really good in.”

Those interviewed noted that at times a follower may be “required to step up into a lead role to prepare the group” and that
effective followers are necessary because the “whole system helps (the) business operate and (then) the business is profitable.” They
observed that leaders cannot work alone and effective followers help to move the organization forward. One example of this came
from the CEO of the CVB who observed that a “staff member recommended live music as a niche” and that “resulted in a pretty
aggressive marketing plan around live music…as a result of that input…through staff retreat from our staff.”
When asked to describe a time when they or someone they know was acting as a follower and engaged in behaviors that resulted
in failure, the participants mentioned experiences involving group project work, an example of an employee stealing things from the
company, a failed university program, and a CVB example that involved politics related to trying to develop cricket sporting events in
the U.S. With regard to the example involving the group project, the graduate student who was interviewed noted that the group had
an ineffective leader and said that she was “forced to take the lead to get the job done.” As far as failure regarding a university
program, the interviewee observed that “the followers, in my opinion, were all doing what we were supposed to be doing, it was that
we had leadership that was confusing us and would say one thing and then would do another thing and it became extremely
confusing to try to figure out what were we really trying to do.” One interviewee observed that people can truly learn from failure and
that “encouraging followership is very important within an organization, the key is, the individuals of that organization have to
understand…not every idea or not every suggestion is going to be followed-up on because of other factors and if you are unhappy
with it, you can’t go outside the circle…and go to other influencers around the community to put pressure on you to make the
decision.” The CEO of the CVB stated that it is important to “encourage follower-ship…it's not always going to be the way you might
hope it's going to be.”
As far as tips for being a successful follower, those interviewed observed the following: do not “forget too much” and do not get
“moving too fast;” possess “internal drive” and do not be “scared to fail”; “understanding where your limitations are,” especially in
areas where you are not an expert (ie. instructional technology for distance education). Other suggestions include participating in
“encouragement, shared vision, support, empathy;” “cheerleading;” “successfully communicate to my team what we need to be
doing;” “camraderie” is important; “empower others to make decisions;” “cohesive goal or objective” is key for the “entire team;”
“encourage them (staff/departments) to work collaboratively to achieve that ultimate goal;” “a culture that is not fragmented and
open door policy.”
All of those interviewed observed that they had been recognized for their contributions as effective followers. Examples included:
“on a committee and you’re not the chairperson…takes you out to lunch and they appreciate you” or “get an award or certificate;”
“consistently telling you things in writing or verbalized;” “ recognition, ie. being elected ”Sargent of Arms” in a fraternal organziation
and won “employee of the month;” “awards won at state level as community recognizes the efforts of staff.” Eleven of the twelve
interviewees also had role models for effective followership, but as one interviewee noted, “yes, but sort of look at them as leaders too
- staff…without them we couldn’t exist.”
When asked how they learned about followership they noted that it was through experience in the various roles that they had
filled, through watching and observing others, and through educational experiences. In terms of how education helped the

47
C.S. Deale et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

interviewees to serve as effective followers, their answers varied and included the following: “college group projects;” “workshops
and professional education/development;” “(I) learned a lot from observing and reading, paying attention and that's how I think I
have learned how to be effective;” “high school helped prep;” and “public relations– you take a lot of communication classes.” One
participant observed that “I don’t know that my degrees trained me for what I’m doing to tell you the truth.” However, they all
believed that education could help to educate future industry professionals about followership if done thoughtfully and purposefully.
When asked for specific examples about what could help students in hosptiality and tourism to learn about followership they gave
the following answers: “group projects force someone to be a leader and a follower;” “hospitality conference with peers;” “people
skills…or as we use the word, ‘soft skills’;” “learning about leadership and (the) importance of inter-office communications… and
dynamics to be prepared for politics;” and “learning about diversity, generational gaps, differences, etc.” They felt that the following
activities and opportunities would be helpful in educational settings to help students gain followership skills: “classes that are maybe
more about interaction, role playing, things of that nature;” “one credit workshops and seminars where it's focused on particular
topics that the student can really become aware of things;” “professional development, belonging to membership organizations
providing professional development;” “workshops (mentioned by seven of them);” “team building exercises;” “workshops or seminars
that might be focused on…problem solving or using case studies for early or mid-level career individuals;” “senior level…leadership
training;” and “professional development offered by membership organizations.” One academic observed the following about edu-
cators, “academics very often, they are only thinking about their own little areas…no clue or no recognition of what's going on
around them and I think that just like in the outside world, companies rise fall based on decisions and based on you know, the, the
work that people have done… academia might be served by case studies of schools or programs that have you know, essentially self-
destructed as a result of the fact that they didn’t work well together…some workshops or seminars might illustrate why did that
happen.”
This exploratory investigation, using IPA methodology, provided initial insights into the views of followership held by hospitality
and tourism students, educators, and industry professionals, and its results can be built upon through further research in this area. In
the literature, the concept of followership is still debated and most studies concentrate on leadership not followership. Much more
can be learned about the views of followership and the practice of followership in hospitality and tourism, but this study offers some
preliminary insights into this fascinating topic. In addition, this work provides food for thought for more investigations into follo-
wership and how it is practiced and how it can be taught in hospitality and tourism education.

5. Implications for educators

It was evident through the interviews that the participants believed that serving as an effective follower is particularly necessary
in the hospitality and tourism field for accomplishing the customer-oriented, team-oriented objectives of many businesses. As noted
by the interviewees, in numerous hospitality and tourism operations, followers need to function self-sufficiently without the constant
direct supervision of their supervisors to perform their jobs. Therefore, those interviewed did not believe that followership is an
outdated or useless concept. Instead, they think that it has value, as a concept and in practice, and that educators could do much to
intentionally teach followership to help students become effective followers and leaders. Through the interviews, suggestions for
teaching effective followership included focusing on effective communication; listening; providing opportunities for students to work
in teams and attend workshops specifically about followership and leadership; and using industry experiences in case studies, in
classroom settings, and via live experiences in internships.
Given the rich information that was provided and the self-reflective process that interviewees engaged in during the course of the
interviews that were conducted for this work, one of the ways to consider followership education in hospitality and tourism would be
to conduct interviews of undergraduate students much in the same way that the interviews were conducted for this study. Students
could interview each other regarding their beliefs about and experiences with followership and then share the results via classroom
discussions. In this way, students could become more aware of followership attributes and behaviors and instructors could learn more
about what their students are thinking and more about their experiences regarding followership. Students could also complete The
Followership Profile (Dixon, 2003), for although it was created in an engineering context, its results could possibly help them to learn
more about themselves as followers.
In addition to these suggestions, instructors could start lessons on the topic of followership by asking critical questions of students
about what effective and ineffective followership is and how these concepts and practices are perceived. After these opening ac-
tivities, an educator might offer definitions and talk with students about effective followership, providing examples from their own
experiences in the industry and those that have been shared in the literature (Raffo, 2013). Following introductory lessons on
followership, educators might then have students apply followership and leadership in practice by having students work together in
teams on various assignments throughout their classes, focusing on effective communication skills. Subsequently, to augment their
study of followership, students might write self-reflections about their own followership beliefs and experiences at different times
during their coursework, including during and at the completion of groups projects and assignments or internships. In addition,
students could create followership plans, based on their reflections, experiences, and the literature, that they could implement in their
careers (Deale et al., 2016).
Moreover, as has been mentioned by the interviewees and in the literature (Hoption, 2104), case studies about followership might
be helpful learning tools and case studies could be created about effective and ineffective followership in practice in the hospitality
and tourism field (Hoption, 2014). The use of case studies could be beneficial for the study of followership in general and could also
be helpful to students about to embark on their internships in the industry. Furthermore, information from case studies and other
sources, such as the literature, about the concepts and practices of effective followership, could be useful to internship supervisors

48
C.S. Deale et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

and mentors, as well as to the students themselves.

6. Conclusions, limitations, and suggestions for further research

This qualitative study was an initial venture into the study of followership in hospitality and tourism education and as such, it is
related to the study of leadership in the industry.
Even though findings from this small set of interviews cannot be generalized they provide interesting information connected to
the study of leadership. The interviewees clearly spoke of the need for both leaders and followers in the industry and noted that
people's roles often change between that of a leader and a follower depending upon the task or project to be completed. They also
spoke of the fact that employees in the industry often have to accomplish tasks without direct supervision so that while they need to
be able to follow others effectively, they also need to be able to lead others in the complex environment of hospitality and tourism
operations. One of the most intriguing findings, according to these stakeholders with experience in the industry, was the give and take
between being a leader and a follower that seems to characterize hospitality and tourism.
Although the results of this study offer ideas for followership education in hospitality and tourism, it has several limitations. As
noted, the study was qualitative and small, including only 12 interviews using IPA methodology. Further interviews of more diverse
individuals could perhaps yield additional meaningful information. The sample may also be skewed, for people who agreed to be
interviewed might possess stronger feelings about or more interest in followership than others or they may have been acquainted with
the researchers by name and therefore, felt more inclined to be interviewed. A larger, more diverse sample and perhaps a quantitative
survey, including one of undergraduate hospitality students, might offer more representative answers and yield results that are
generalizable. Future work that could also add to the knowledge of followership in hospitality and tourism would be to survey line
employees versus managers.
Because this work was a qualitative one that investigated the beliefs about followership of only a few individuals who are
stakeholders in hospitality and tourism education, additional studies with diverse demographic groups, including various industry
segments and cultures, are necessary to understand followership more thoroughly in hospitality and tourism education and the
industry itself. Those interviewed were all from the U.S. and other views of followership are needed to understand the concepts and
practices in other cultures and contexts. Further research is also necessary to establish effective followership attributes and practices
that are salient in hospitality and tourism, for individuals in the field serve as both followers and leaders throughout their careers in
some capacity and both roles are important.

Appendix A. Followership in hospitality and tourism interview questions

1. What is your definition of a follower and followership?

2. What do you think effective followership is and why?
3. What do you think ineffective followership is and why?

a. Tell me more about the way you think about followership?

b. What does followership mean to you?

4. Do you think there are benefits of being a follower/subordinate?

a. If yes, what are they?

b. If no, why not?

5. Do you think there are drawbacks to being a follower/subordinate?

a. If yes, what are they?
b. If no, why not?
6. Are there personal qualities AND behaviors that make followers/subordinates more or less successful?
a. If yes, what are they?
b. What outcomes do you think are associated with these characteristics?
7. Tell me about a time when you or someone you know acting as a follower/subordinate engaged in behaviors that resulted in
success? (need specifics on the position of the person if they did not use themselves as an example)
a. What happened? (series of events, behaviors, actions, etc.)
b. What were the outcomes?
8. Tell me about a time when you or someone you know acting as a follower/subordinate engaged in behaviors that resulted in
FAILURE? (need specifics on the position of the person if they did not use themselves as an example)
a. What happened? (series of events, behaviors, actions, etc.)
b. What were the outcomes?
9. Do you see yourself as a successful follower/subordinate?
a. What makes you successful/unsuccessful?
b. What do others do to make you successful?
c. How do others prevent you from being successful?

49
C.S. Deale et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

10. Have you ever been appreciated for your contribution to your organization/team?
11. Do you have role models for followership and if so who are they?
12. How did you learn about effective followership in general?
13. What is your education level and what is your educational background?
14. Was your educational background helpful in terms of learning to be an effective follower?
15. If your education experience was helpful, specifically what courses, content, and/or experiences were helpful to you?
16. How do you think that hosptiality and tourism education could help nurture effective followership and help students to be better
prepared?
17. What kinds of professional development and continuing education would be helpful to you now regarding followerhip?
18. What do you think are the most important ways to implement effective followership?
19. What good advice have you heard or do you have for others so that they can become effective followers?
20. Do you have any questions to ask of us?
21. Do you have anything additional to tell us that you think might help me to understand more about your role as a follower and
your understanding of followership?
22. What is your current position?

1. ____student
2. ____faculty member
3. ____industry professional

23. What is the highest degree you have earned?

1. _____ Doctorate (PhD, JD, EdD, etc.)

2. _____ Masters
3. _____Bachelor's degree
4. _____some college: please specify your year and major:
5. _____ Other (please specify:

24. Do you have any work experience (e.g., front desk, dining room, kitchen,

housekeeping, etc.) in the hospitality and tourism industry?

a. If you answered “yes” to the preceding item, what are the most prominent positions you have held? Please specify, by listing two
or three (if applicable):
b. If you answered “yes” to the preceding item, how many years (combined) of industry experienced do you have, not counting
internships/externships?

25. In what state or country are you located?

References

Agho, A. O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16, 159–166. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809335360.
Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2004). Leadership and gender in public relations: Perceived effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership styles. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 16(2), 157–183.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the mul-
tifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462.
Baker, G. R., & Denis, J. (2011). Medical leadership in health care systems: From professional authority to organizational leadership. Public Money & Management,
31(5), 355–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2011.598349.
Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden43–44.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City. CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership, 11. New York: Free Press.
Baublits, J. L. (2014). Promoting creative capacity in followership education. Journal of Leadership Education, 14, 146–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.12806/v13/i4/c15.
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of
Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(3), 304–319.
Blanchard, A. L., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009). Followership styles and employee attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal,
12(2), 111–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10887150902888718.
Bridges, E. M., & Hallinger, P. (1996). Problem‐based learning in leadership education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 53–61.
Brum, C. A., & Drury, S. (2013). Leadership that empowers: How strategic planning relates to followership. Engineering Management Journal, 25(4), 17–32.
Brungardt, C. (1997). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership development and education. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 3(3),
81–95.
Cai, L. A., & Hobson, J. P. (2004). Making hotel brands work in a competitive environment. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(3), 197–208.

50
C.S. Deale et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 22 (2018) 42–51

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(3), 543–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015.
Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J.
Lipman-Blumen (Vol. Eds.), (1st ed.). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations: 146, (pp. 67–87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (2nd). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Chou, S. Y. (2012). Millennials in the workplace: A conceptual analysis of Millennials' leadership and followership styles. International Journal of Human Resource
Studies, 2(2), 71–89.
Colangelo, A. J. (2000). Followership: Leadership styles (Doctoral dissertation). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179–189.
Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1419–1442.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 13(1), 46–78.
Deale, C. S., Schoffstall, D. G., & Brown, E. A. (2016). What does it mean to follow? An exploration of a followership profile in hospitality and tourism. Journal of
Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 16(4), 235–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2016.1180964.
Dixon, G. (2009). Can we lead and follow? Engineering Management Journal, 21, 34–41.
Dixon, E. N. (2003). An exploration of the relationship of organizational level and measures of follower behaviors (Doctoral dissertation). Huntsville: The University of
Alabama.
Dixon, G., & Westbrook, J. (2003). Followers revealed. Engineering Management Journal, 15(1), 19–25.
Dixon, G., Mercado, A., & Knowles, B. (2013). Followers and generations in the workplace. Engineering Management Journal, 25(4), 62–72.
Farling, M. A., Stone, G., & Winston, B. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(2), 49–72.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw, & L. L. Cumming (Vol. Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 9, (pp.
175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Haven‐Tang, C., & Jones, E. (2012). Local leadership for rural tourism development: A case study of Adventa, Monmouthshire, UK. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4,
28–35.
Heifetz, R. A. (2007). The scholarly/practical challenge of leadership. In R. A. Couto (Ed.). Reflections on leadership (pp. 33–44). Lanham, Maryland: University Press of
America.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management and organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hollander, E. (2012). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. London: Routledge.
Hoption, C. (2014). Learning and developing followership. Journal of Leadership Education, 13, 129–137 (doi:1012806/v13/i3i1).
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of con-
solidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891–910.
Kang, J. W., Heo, J. H., & Kim, J. H. (2015). The followership of hotel employees and the relationship between occupational burnout, job stress, and customer
orientation: Targeting the hotel service providers at luxury hotels. Tourism and Hospitality Research (Online Only). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1467358415610374.
Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders (Center for Public Leadership). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and
organizations (pp. 5–15). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Kelley, R. E. (2004). Followership. In G. M. Burns, G. R. Goethel, & G. J. Sorenson (Eds.). Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 504–513). Oxford: Sage Reference/Berkshire.
Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people will want to follow and followers who lead themselves. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142–148.
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2009). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). The five practices of exemplary student leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lowe, B., K. Galen Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of
the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425.
Lundin, S. C., & Lancaster, L. C. (1990). Beyond leadership…the importance of followership. The Futurist, 24(1), 18–22.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389–418.
Merriti, A. C., & Helmreich, R. L. (1996). Human factors on the flight deck the influence of national culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(1), 5–24.
Montesino, M. (2003). Leadership/followership similarities between people in a developed and a developing country: The case of Dominicans in NYC and Dominicans
on the island. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(1), 82–92.
Posner, B. Z. (2004). A leadership development instrument for students: Updated. Journal of College Student Development, 45(4), 443–456.
Potter, E. H., Rosenbach, W. E., & Pittman, T. S. (2001). Followers for the times: Engaging employees in a winning partnership. In W. E. Rosenbach, & R. L. Taylor
(Eds.). Contemporary issues in leadership (pp. 163–181). (5th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Raelin, J. (2003). Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out Leadership in everyone. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Raffo, D. M. (2013). Teaching followership in leadership education. Journal of Leadership Education, 12(1), 262–272.
Reid, K., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2005). Exploring lived experience. The Psychologist, 18(1), 20–23.
Rosenau, J. (2004). Followership and discretion. Harvard International Review, 26(3), 14–17.
Rost, J. C. (2008). Leadership definition. In A. Marturano, & J. Gosling (Vol. Eds.), Leadership: The key concepts: 2008, (pp. 94–99). London: Routledge.
Rost, J. C. (1995). Leadership: A discussion about ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 129–142.
Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76–84.
Schindler, J. H. (2012). Followership as perceived by leaders in the hospitality industry (Doctoral dissertation). Minneapolis, MN: Walden University.
Seteroff, S. S. (2003). Beyond leadership to followership: Leading from where you are. Victoria, Canada: Trafford.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35–71.
Saunders, R. (2004). Leadership training in hospitality. Hospitality Review, 22(1), 4.
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73–84.
Testa, M. R. (2000). Hospitality leaders: Do they know how their employees feel about them? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 80–89.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007.
Van Vugt, M. (2009). Despotism, democracy, and the evolutionary dynamics of leadership and followership. American Psychologist, 1(1), 54–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/a0014178.
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 354–371.
Wang, P., & Cameron, A. (2012). Searching for the successful hospitality follower. A case study in Followership. In CAUTHE 2012: The new golden age of tourism and
hospitality. Book 2, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia, La Trobe University, 2012, 645-649.
Ward, P. J., & Ellis, G. D. (2008). Characteristics of youth leadership that influence adolescent peers to follow. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26(2),
78–94.

51